doug at ewellic.org
Mon Jan 9 00:33:28 CET 2017
Luc Pardon wrote:
> OK, got it. Since we were talking about the registry, I assumed the
I don't think I follow the logic. Language tags and the languages and
variants they represent are always mapped through BCP 47 and the
Registry, whether by tag creator or consumer.
> I agree that it would be pointless, but this is a use case I am not
> familiar with, and I have no idea how a search for content in a
> specific language would be implemented. Maybe with
> "language:*-spanglis", similar to "author:*Lewis*"?
Language tag matching is often more complex than simply applying a
>> And what if it's 51% to 49%?
> He would still save 2% on his tagging efforts. Not sure if that
> outweighs the counting effort, but since some people seem to consider
> fine-grained tagging as part of the Ninth Circle of Hell ...
I think the counterclaim that has been made is that not all content, not
even all Web content, needs to be tagged finely enough to comply with
WCAG. If the content in question does need to be WCAG-compliant, such as
a government site or one belonging to a major, high-profile business,
then go ahead and tag all borrowings. I suspect most Spanglish content
won't need to be WCAG-compliant.
> Just to bring some owls to Athens: what is currently on the table is
> a variant subtag and so we can't really do without the prefixes for
> both "en" and "es". That means the tag creator will have to choose one
> or the other anyway, anyhow.
Well, and I'm proposing a different approach.
> Problem is we'd have to send Michael to ISO 639 first, and only when
> he comes back empty-handed can the discussion be started.
I'm almost certain ISO 639 will say no. I can submit the request if
desired. What concerns me is the possibility that the "urgency" card
will be played and we will rush through a different solution with little
deep, comparative discussion.
Doug Ewell | Thornton, CO, US | ewellic.org
More information about the Ietf-languages